Right. the law states: Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration: ⢠the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) ⢠the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) ⢠the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement ⢠touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement ⢠hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement How can you give Liverpool a penalty when Micah Richards has no intention to handle the ball. It takes a deflection off his leg and hit his hand. His hand/arm does not hit the ball. Referees need to sort this out. Hand ball has to be deliberate.
Deliberate or avoidable - if avoidable it would be looked at as deliberate. I haven't seen the incident (am I Arsene?), was it avoidable?
Not sure who the liverpool player was but he has taken a shot from the edge of the box and micah is about 2 yards away and slides to block. Hits his leg and then hits his arm going up. He had no chance of getting his arm out of the way. His arm was there for balance. Even the commentators agree.
Everyone keeps trying to make hand ball difficult by talking about intent. Virtually no hand ball would be given in that case. If he was standing there and the ball was kicked straight at him...not handball. He was sliding in to intercept a shot on goal..his interception involved his lower arm..I would be seriously pissed off if Saints didn't get that as a penalty.
Intent is in the law and that is what should be used it is obviously not. ATM. You can not take intent out of it.
He intended to stop a goal..he wasn't just standing in the way. Intent is there. When he slid across the goal he knew there was a chance that the ball would hit his leg, body or arm. Refs are not mindreaders.
I haven't seen it but we could have a debate on handball for three hours, the referee has about one second. From what I've heard it sounds like it flicked off him and was probably harsh. It's true that the only deciding factor is whether it is deliberate and not whether an advantage was gained, which why Goodwillie scored a perfectly legal goal with his hand last week (probably the only way he was going to score). Interestingly if the goalkeeper throws his shinpad or boot at the ball in the penalty area he is not guilty of handball.
He clearly was not intending to stop it with his arms, was he or he would have dived with his hands. If your saying that then no one can go in for a tackle as there is a chance that the ball could hit their arm.
After all if intent is that important virtually no penalty would be given. I was going for the ball, guv, never intended to put Guly in row Z.
The referee has about 1 or 2 seconds to make a decision. 9 times out of 10 refs would give a pen for the Richards handball
Wrong intent is for violent conduct as well - you have got to intend to punch, kick, elbow etc for it to be violent conduct
I know but the law's an ass. Why make it hard for refs by having them make split second decisions based on guessing what the player thinks. Should always be given unless hit directly (and possibly deliberately) at a player whose hands are by his side or being used to protect himself.
Its not hard. If a player moves there hand towards the ball and stops it directly then thats a free-kick/penalty. If the ball hits a players hand then its not. Its not that hard.
Got my fingers in my ears and singing loudly. This is a particular bete noir of mine. You won't convince me and I won't convince you.
